FMCSA's Broker Transparency Rule Is at the White House — Here's What It Would Change
September 2026 · 8 min read
On August 27, 2026, FMCSA sent its supplemental “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” proposal to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs — the last checkpoint before a rulemaking publishes in the Federal Register and opens for comment. The agency has said it expects the proposal out this month. It would rewrite a rule that has been on the books since 1980: the carrier's right to see the broker's record of a load, including what the shipper paid. Here's how the rule got here, what the proposal would require, and what brokers should do before it lands.
What Just Happened
FMCSA submitted the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking — RIN 2126-AC63, Docket FMCSA-2023-0257 — to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on August 27. OIRA review runs up to 90 days under Executive Order 12866, extendable once by 30. The text stays confidential until it clears. After it does, it publishes in the Federal Register with a fresh comment period.
The word that matters is supplemental. FMCSA published a full broker transparency proposal on November 20, 2024. The current administration chose not to finalize it and to re-propose instead — which means another round of public comment before anything becomes binding. The proposal has already missed target dates of May and July 2026; the agency now says it's coming in September.
The Rule Brokers Have Been Under Since 1980
49 CFR 371.3, “Records to be kept by brokers,” has required since 1980 that a broker keep a record of each brokered transaction and that each party to that transaction be allowed to review it. On paper, a carrier has been entitled for 45 years to see the broker's record of a load it hauled — including the amount the shipper was billed.
In practice the right is close to a dead letter, for two reasons. First, brokers routinely include a clause in their carrier contracts by which the carrier waives its 371.3(c) review right. Second, a carrier that actually demands to see a broker's books tends to stop getting that broker's freight. The right exists; exercising it has a cost, and a signature can sign it away.
How It Got to a Rulemaking
In 2020, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and the Small Business in Transportation Coalition each petitioned FMCSA to put teeth in the rule: require brokers to provide an electronic copy of the transaction record automatically, within 48 hours of a load being completed, and prohibit the waiver clauses. TIA filed a counter-petition asking FMCSA to delete 371.3(c) altogether, arguing the conditions that justified it in 1980 — when brokers operated as commissioned agents of carriers — are gone.
In 2023, FMCSA granted the carrier petitions and denied TIA's. The November 2024 NPRM followed. It drew roughly 5,000 comments; FMCSA reopened the window in early 2025 and took in about 2,000 more. The agency's stated goal across the docket has been to “address an asymmetry of information between brokers, shippers, and motor carriers that affects the ability of all parties to participate effectively in a fair, efficient transportation system.”
What the 2024 Proposal Would Require
The supplemental version is confidential until it clears the White House, but it builds on the 2024 NPRM, which proposed four changes to 371.3:
Electronic records, required
Brokers would have to keep each transaction record in an electronic format. A drawer of printed rate confirmations would no longer be a compliant recordkeeping system.
Expanded record contents
The record would have to show all charges and payments connected to the shipment — what the shipper was billed, what the carrier was paid, the freight description, the dates, and any claims for loss or damage. The broker's margin sits in plain view between the two sides.
An affirmative duty, not a passive right
Today the rule reads as a right the carrier can ask to exercise. The proposal reframes it as a duty the broker owes: on request from a party to the transaction, the broker must hand over the record.
A 48-hour clock
Once a carrier or shipper asks for the record, the broker would have 48 hours to produce an electronic copy.
The 2024 proposal stopped short of banning the waiver clauses outright. But by casting disclosure as an affirmative regulatory duty rather than a right the carrier has to invoke, FMCSA signaled that a broker leaning on a waiver could be exposed to enforcement anyway. It also rejected the argument that rate-benchmarking data services make transaction records unnecessary — aggregated market data, the agency noted, doesn't carry shipment-specific identifiers or show carrier-specific chargebacks and fees.
What the Supplemental Might Change
The re-proposal exists to reconcile what FMCSA proposed in 2024 with what the petitioners actually asked for. Two open questions:
Automatic transmission. OOIDA and SBTC wanted the record sent to the carrier on every load without anyone having to ask. The 2024 NPRM only required a response within 48 hours of a request. The supplemental could move toward automatic delivery — a much larger operational change for brokers — or keep the request model.
The waiver clauses. The petitioners wanted them explicitly prohibited. The 2024 NPRM didn't go there. The supplemental could, or could again leave the question to be fought out in contract disputes under 49 U.S.C. 14101.
It could also narrow the rule. Until the text publishes, both directions are on the table.
Where the Industry Stands
TIA (brokers and 3PLs)
OpposedThe Transportation Intermediaries Association calls the rule outdated and burdensome — “a solution in search of a problem” rooted in a 1980s market that no longer exists. TIA argues FMCSA should be spending its rulemaking capacity on freight fraud, which its members put at more than $1 billion a year in losses, rather than on rate disclosure.
ATA (motor carriers, large fleets)
OpposedThe American Trucking Associations urged FMCSA to reconsider, warning that mandated disclosure of commercial terms could compromise the competitiveness of the supply chain.
OOIDA and SBTC (owner-operators, small carriers)
Want it strongerThe groups that petitioned for the rulemaking want the broker to send the record automatically within 48 hours of a load being completed — no request required — and an explicit ban on contract clauses that waive the carrier's right to see it. They frame transparency as the way an honest broker distinguishes itself from one that isn't.
One quiet wrinkle: FMCSA classified small entities as not affected by the 2024 proposal, so it did no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis — an unusual call given that the organizations that started the rulemaking represent small carriers.
The Transparency Fight and the Fraud Fight
TIA's central objection is one of priorities: with freight fraud running into ten figures a year, a rule about rate disclosure reads to brokers like the wrong emergency. That argument has weight. It also understates how connected the two problems are.
A broker that keeps a complete, load-level transaction record — who was tendered the load, what they were paid, when — is a broker that can prove a load wasn't double-brokered, and can produce that proof quickly when a shipper or an insurer asks. The same record is what answers the “what did the broker know” question in a negligent-selection claim after a crash. Recordkeeping discipline built for a transparency rule pays off in fraud defense whether or not the rule is ever finalized.
What Brokers Should Do Now
Get transaction records into a structured electronic system now
Rate confirmations, carrier invoices, settlement and payment records, and claims — filed per load and retrievable in minutes, not reconstructed from email threads. If the proposal publishes close to its current form, structured electronic recordkeeping is the real lift, and it's a quarter of work, not a weekend.
Find the waiver clause in your carrier contract template
Most broker–carrier agreements include language waiving the carrier's right to review records under 49 CFR 371.3(c). If FMCSA reframes disclosure as an affirmative duty, that clause may not shield you — and relying on it could itself draw scrutiny. Decide now whether you keep fighting that battle.
Decide your disclosure posture before a carrier forces the question
Under the proposal, any carrier could request the record on any load and you would have 48 hours. Know what you will send, in what format, and who owns the response — rather than improvising it the first time a carrier asks.
Treat it as fraud defense, not just a compliance cost
A broker who can produce a clean, load-level record on demand can also show that a load went to the carrier it was tendered to. That's the same evidence that rebuts a double-brokering allegation or a post-crash “knew or should have known” claim.
Comment when it publishes
Because this is a supplemental proposal, there will be another comment window. The last two drew roughly 7,000 comments combined, and that response is a large part of why the rule is still moving.
What Happens Next
If the proposal clears OIRA, it publishes in the Federal Register and opens a comment period — typically 60 days. FMCSA then has to read and respond to the comments before it can issue a final rule, and a final rule sets its own compliance date after that. Nothing changes for brokers on publication day. Realistically, a binding requirement is a 2027 question at the earliest.
The near-term value is knowing which way the wind is blowing. A rulemaking that has survived a change in administration, roughly 7,000 comments, a petition, and a counter-petition is not going away because the text got sent back for a rewrite. Brokers who spend the runway getting their transaction records in order — and deciding where they stand on disclosure — will be reacting to a comment period, not a compliance deadline.
Know your carriers before you tender the load
FreightWatch tracks FMCSA authority status, out-of-service orders, insurance filings, and safety data for every carrier on your watchlist — and alerts you the moment something moves. Clean vetting and clean records are the same defense.
Sources: FMCSA, “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions,” NPRM published in the Federal Register November 20, 2024 (Docket FMCSA-2023-0257, RIN 2126-AC63), and the underlying regulation at 49 CFR 371.3. OIRA review status and August 27, 2026 submission: FreightWaves, “Broker transparency proposal clears FMCSA and heads to the White House” and “FMCSA says the broker transparency proposal is coming this month”; Commercial Carrier Journal, “Broker transparency proposal heads to OMB”; Transport Topics, “FMCSA revives freight broker transparency proposal”; Land Line, “Long-awaited broker transparency proposal almost here.” 2020 OOIDA and SBTC petitions, TIA counter-petition, and 2023 grant: FMCSA docket materials and Benesch LLP regulatory analysis. Stakeholder positions: TIA, “State of Fraud in the Industry” report and TIA statements on the NPRM; ATA and OOIDA comment filings in Docket FMCSA-2023-0257. OIRA review timelines: Executive Order 12866.